Log Cabin’s disappointing endorsement

A Commentary

Timothy Kincaid

October 23rd, 2012

Log Cabin Republicans has endorsed Mitt Romney for president. While it is a “qualified endorsement”, I’m not certain that it is either deserved or wise.

I share the organization’s frustrations with President Obama. The economic condition of our nation is lamentable and the president’s policies do not align with what I believe to be sound economic theory or principled fiscal responsibility. I do not share his views about the international role of our nation and his priorities are not my own. The three debates have left me convinced that he has no solution and will, at best, be a placeholder until someone better and wiser can be elected.

But LCR did not issue a “not Obama” endorsement. They have endorsed Mitt Romney. And while he is no Rick Santorum, he has not impressed me as a man of vision and firm principles.

LCR rightly notes that Romney’s pledge and pander to the National Organization for Marriage is no indication that if elected Romney would push for a federal marriage amendment. Nor would he seek to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

But Mitt Romney likely would instruct the Justice Department to defend DOMA (should it still be in the courts) and would reverse a number of policy positions that impact gay federal employees. And these decisions would not only be harmful to LGBT Americans, they would harm the nation. They would continue the divisive and destructive culture war and diminish our standing in the world.

There is within Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement statement one sentence that gives me hope; they state that the endorsement is not free.

While “not free” can mean most anything, within this organization’s history it has been a literal term. LCR has negotiated with campaign’s in previous years to move the Republican Party outside its comfort zone: policy positions, speakers at the national convention, campaign language. These have been trades that have been of substantial substance and required clearance at the highest level.

So it is possible that LCR has negotiated with the candidate for something beneficial to our community. It’s late in the game, so I can’t imagine what could be the issue – and I may never know. So this is for me little more than a vague hope to give small comfort to a disappointment.

The text of the endorsement:

Log Cabin Republicans Endorse Mitt Romney for President

We Are Americans First

Presidential endorsements are serious business. The decision to say, “we stake our name and our reputation” on a candidate’s worthiness for the nation’s highest office says as much about an organization’s principles as it does the candidate.

As the only Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of LGBT Americans and their allies, Log Cabin Republicans work within the GOP to make the conservative case for pro-equality policies and legislation. Since Log Cabin’s founding in the late 1970s, we have believed in a simple idea: building a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party requires Republicans reaching out to Republicans.

The freedom to work without fear of discrimination, the freedom to serve in our nation’s military, and the freedom to marry are all issues of vital importance. As we considered our endorsement decision, we did not degrade these issues as irrelevant, nor did we overlook the harm that is done to the Republican brand when our standard-bearers appear to be caught up in an outdated culture war.

But as we condemn the aspects of the GOP platform which work to exclude our families, we are still able to cheer the vision for America which was presented in Tampa, where success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity.
We believe that President Obama has broken his promises to our country. Rather than focusing on job creation, he pushed through an extremely partisan, expensive and intrusive healthcare bill, presided over a United States credit downgrade, and has made no credible attempt to cut spending as our national debt has topped $16 trillion. Our nation is in a financial crisis, and we are in desperate need of a change in course.

If LGBT issues are a voter’s highest or only priority, then Governor Romney may not be that voter’s choice. However, Log Cabin Republicans is an organization representing multifaceted individuals with diverse priorities. Having closely reviewed the candidate’s history and observed the campaign, we believe Governor Romney will make cutting spending and job creation his priorities, and, as his record as Governor of Massachusetts suggests, will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans.

We are confident that there will be no retreat from the significant gains we’ve made in recent years, most importantly on repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” With regard to the LGBT issue most likely to reach the president’s desk and most vital to many in our community today – workplace nondiscrimination – we are persuaded that we can work with a Romney administration to achieve a desirable outcome. And for those people who point fearfully to potential vacancies on the United States Supreme Court, we offer a reminder: five of the eight federal court rulings against DOMA were written by Republican-appointed judges. Mitt Romney is not Rick Santorum, and Paul Ryan is not Michele Bachmann. Otherwise, our decision would have been different.
After long consideration, weighing input from our members and chapters, and dialogue with the Mitt Romney campaign and the candidate, the National Board of Directors of the Log Cabin Republicans have elected to issue a qualified endorsement for Governor Romney for president.

Significance of a Qualified Endorsement

The qualified nature of this endorsement means that Log Cabin Republicans will be most active in our support for House and Senate candidates. Our membership base and network of chapters nationwide will be actively supporting our allies in Congress as part of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Operation Rolling Surge” deployment program.

Our greatest efforts will be directed at electing pro-equality leaders like Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the first Republican to cosponsor the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act; members of the House LGBT Equality Caucus like Representatives Nan Hayworth and Richard Hanna of New York; and staunchly pro-equality challengers like Linda McMahon of Connecticut and our very own Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, who will become the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress. While many of our members will also be working hard on behalf of Governor Romney, growing the pro-equality Republican presence in the House and Senate is our highest electoral priority this year.

Regarding the governor’s signature on the National Organization for Marriage pledge during the Republican primaries
From the day Governor Romney signed this pledge, Log Cabin has been outspoken in our opposition to this exercise in an outdated politics of division. Even with this endorsement, we will continue to voice our disagreement with any call for a constitutional amendment federalizing a definition of marriage that excludes LGBT families.

However, 2012 is not 2004. The Federal Marriage Amendment has been voted on twice, and each time has failed with bipartisan opposition. Marriage equality is now the law in six states and the District of Columbia, and polls consistently show a slim but growing majority of Americans supporting the freedom to marry. Even among Republicans, support for the freedom to marry is growing. Particularly in today’s economic climate, there is simply no appetite to pass or even seriously consider any such amendment.

While even the suggestion of enshrining discrimination in our nation’s most precious document is deeply offensive, there is a significant difference between a valid threat and an empty promise made to a vocal but shrinking constituency. In our judgment, the NOM pledge is ultimately merely symbolic and thus should not be the basis of a decision to withhold an endorsement from an otherwise qualified candidate, particularly given the gravity of the economic and national security issues currently at stake.


There has been discussion about whether we, as members of Log Cabin Republicans, are LGBT first or Republican first. Ultimately, we believe the answer is neither. We are Americans first, and as such, must stand for what we believe is right for our country.

Our endorsement of Mitt Romney is not free. We commit, here and now, that we will work with the party as we are able, and challenge the party as it is necessary, to ensure that it lives up to its highest ideals of limited government and individual freedom.The Log Cabin Republicans motto is “inclusion wins.” If LGBT Americans are serious about winning equality for all, rather than merely playing politics, Republicans must be part of the team.


October 23rd, 2012

They sold out. As I said they would. They sold out on McCain/Palin as well.

LCR is not a gay organization or one that keeps the best interests of the community anymore. It is not the LCR with balls that refused GWB endorsement.

Come election time, their position will be the same of GOProud.


October 23rd, 2012

Well disappointing. Is the lack of backbone and character a required feature of this years GOP candidates and groups?

A placeholder president is still better than a stuff shirt like Romney. And that placeholder got my absentee vote a few days ago. I voted for no other DFL candidate or any Republican candidate on my ballot. This years choices were just too depressing. I look forward to 2016.


October 23rd, 2012

Just a day or two after the Romney camp affirms their belief that hospital visitation and the ability to adopt children are “benefits” to be decided by the states.I am baffled.

Ben in Oakland

October 23rd, 2012

The republicans held congress from 1994 to 2006, and the presidency from 2001-2008. Those years of republicanism saw our economy and stature decline.

Though the democrats were not blameless, they also weren’t running the show. Obama has done the best he could to bring us out of that mess, despite having to fight the last four years against against the republican obstructionism and the democrat spinelessness.

I’d take the worst that Obama has to offer against the best that the republicans have. as a gay man, I am the declared enemy of the Republican Party. I guess I really AM a one issue voter, because I believe that if you can’t get it right about gay people, you probably don’t get much else right either.

Thanks to LCR, I think this is right once again.

Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

Timothy said “I share the organization’s frustrations with President Obama. The economic condition of our nation is lamentable and the president’s policies do not align with what I believe to be sound economic theory or principled fiscal responsibility”.

And you believe that because you’ve blindly accepted a tired old myth rather than objectively judging the evidence:

“”Under Republican administrations, and allowing a one-year lag to provide for time for policies to have effect, unemployment has increased, while gross national product and inflation have decreased. The opposite has occurred under Democratic control of the White House. This, Bartels said, reflects the basic divergence in policy objectives of the two parties.

Where partisan differences really begin to exacerbate income inequality is taxation.

“The tax policy of Republican administrations tends to favor the wealthy segments of society through policies such as tax cuts that mostly favor the rich and businesses, and repeal of the estate tax, which only applies to multi-millionaires,” Bartels said. “Democratic policy follows more egalitarian values, utilizing redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation to decrease inequality.

“In fact, there are significant data that show a pattern between Republican administrations and slow income growth across the board, and among the poor especially. On the other hand, the data suggest that, under Democratic administrations, inequality temporarily decreases, while more robust income growth is seen overall, and is especially concentrated in the middle- and lower-classes.”.”.


While a common false assumption is that Log Cabin Republicans vote for their economic interests over their rights the truth is they are voting AGAINST their economic interests as are the vast majority of Republican voters. The gap between the rich and poor is greatest in Republican leaning states:


While Republicans try to portray Reagan as a political god a realistic look at his presidency shows his policies were largely a failure.

Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create.


Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

This idiotic Republican idea that lowering taxes will increase revenue and create jobs has been proven wrong over and over. Look at what happened when Clinton was in office. The top tax rate was 39.6% and 20.8 million private sector jobs were created. Under Bush the top tax rate was lowered to 35% and 663,000 private sector jobs were lost. When Clinton left office there was a $236 billion surplus. When Bush left office there was a 1.2 trillion deficit. Now, Republicans like Romney like to dishonestly retort that since Obama took office the debt has risen by close to 5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama and how much was caused by the financial crisis and the continuation of Bush policies? When we look at policies and the cost of legislation passed by Obama and Bush the cost of Bush policies from 2001-2009 is 5.1 trillion and the cost of Obama policies is 983 billion.


What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary, the stimulus is over now, while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means the above chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. The cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were similarly inherited by Obama from Bush. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.


October 23rd, 2012

Thank you, Priya. Mr. Kincaid, you baffle me. You’re milquetoast on Obama? Who was handed the worst economic situation we’ve seen since the Great Depression? What else would *you* do?

Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

The jobs outlook in the U.S. would have been better and the unemployment rate a full percentage point lower if it weren’t for Republicans forcing Obama to cut government jobs and blocking his efforts to provide federal assistance to save state government jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police amongst others.

One year ago and again several weeks ago Obama presented the American jobs act proposal. Economists, including Mark Zandy a former Mccain economic supervisor say it would have added 2 million jobs to the economy but every single Republican voted against it because they desperately wanted the economy to fail under Obama. What have Republicans been doing instead? The Republican party platform bans abortion with no mentions of exceptions for rape or incest. Paul Ryan sponsored an abortion bill that said public funding for abortion could only be used in cases of “forcible” rape, (apparently Republicans think a lot of women aren’t really raped, they enjoy it and are willing participants). Since the election wins in 2010 the Republicans in the house have backed 55 votes on anti-women policies.

The GOP controlled House took 17 votes that would “allow health insurance companies to discriminate against women,” while 11 votes would have “cut women’s access to preventive care.”. Ten “restricted or rolled back abortion rights,” the report stated, and others cut key nutrition programs or weakened violence and discrimination protections for women. It’s the year 2012, yet American women are still disproportionately hurt by Republican stonewalling on basic issues, such as family planning, protection against domestic violence, reproductive rights and nutrition assistance for pregnant women and children.


Despite the Republican’s dishonest claim in 2010 that “We’re going to have a relentless focus on creating jobs.” not only did they fail to advance any job creation bills they’ve waged a relentless war on women instead and have done everything they can to harm the economy.


October 23rd, 2012

we are still able to cheer the vision for America which was presented in Tampa, where success is a virtue, equal opportunity is ensured, and leaders recognize that it is the American people, not government, that build our nation and fuel its prosperity.

Really? The convention in Tampa supported ENDA and our equal opprotunity to a job? Funny I don’t remember that…

With regard to the LGBT issue most likely to reach the president’s desk and most vital to many in our community today – workplace nondiscrimination – we are persuaded that we can work with a Romney administration to achieve a desirable outcome

Why would you need to work with him anymore? I thought he presented his ‘vision’ in Tampa included equal opportunity? And you know what’d be better than the Republicans who you have to ‘work with’ to support our basic civil rights? The Democrats who already overwhelmingly support it.

I’m pointing out this one tiny bit of BS because if I went after the whole thing I’d have some very nasty words for these traitors. Woops, there I go…


October 23rd, 2012

1. Timothy, you need to re-read the “endorsement isn’t free” passage. It clearly implies that they received nothing in return, but they hope to be invited to the parties.

2. @Kevin – “Just a day or two after the Romney camp affirms their belief that hospital visitation and the ability to adopt children are “benefits” to be decided by the states. I am baffled.” Romney’s spokesperson was gracious enough to describe these matters as ‘benefits’, omitting the qualifier ‘special.’ Maybe this is a great semantic victory for equality?

3. If Romney wins, the only event that would prevent the Supreme Court from upholding DOMA would be victories for equality in at least two of The Four. Romney will file to delay a hearing until he can replace one of the liberal or centrist justices with someone selected by Robert Bork from a list provided by NOM.

4. When Romney’s tax cuts fail to produce jobs or to cut the deficit, and his war on Iran turns into a disaster, he will need to shore up his right wing and distract the rest of the nation from the resulting problems, and to do so, he will support and sign all the ‘guns, gays and god’ executive actions and legislation that Tony Perkins can conceive for him.


October 23rd, 2012


You and I disagree on many things, but even you can’t say ” The economic condition of our nation is lamentable.”
Compared to where we were prior to the Obama administration I say that while we can’t celebrate we don’t have to lament what is going on with the economy. Generally people are happy when unemployment goes down.

“They have endorsed Mitt Romney. And while he is no Rick Santorum, he has not impressed me as a man of vision and firm principles.”

Understatement of the millennium. Romney flip flops and contradicts himself so much it is not even funny any more.

Timothy Kincaid

October 23rd, 2012


What I do for a living is 1) tax accounting, and 2) analysis of bankruptcy estates. I don’t want to go into a lengthy explanation of that one sentence about our economic condition, but please be assured that I do not make it lightly.

We can disagree, of course. But please be aware that our economic situation is most certainly NOT something that “even I” cannot label as lamentable. We are – in my not-completely-ignorant opinion – in deep sh!t, and I am worried that too few people (including our president) seem to be inadequately projecting into the future.

But, nevertheless, I’m still not voting for Romney.


October 23rd, 2012

The economy goes up, the economy goes down. the thing that concerns me most is the Supreme Court.

My politics are more aligned with the Green Party, but I realize that if I don’t vote for Obama that Romney might be choosing Justices that would be more than happy to curtail my rights as a citizen.


October 23rd, 2012

Just commenting on one more point

” presided over a United States credit downgrade, and has made no credible attempt to cut spending as our national debt has topped $16 trillion.”

He is not at fault for the credit downgrading and S&P placed most of the blame of the downgrade on the GOP. As for the national debt do they really think the GOP and Romney are going to cut the national debt? Do we live in some magical world where increasing spending on defense and ships causes your debt to go down?

Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

Timothy said “We are – in my not-completely-ignorant opinion – in deep sh!t, and I am worried that too few people (including our president) seem to be inadequately projecting into the future.”.

Nonsense, and you appeal to authority logical fallacy doesn’t score you any points either.

You were in deep sh!t in 2009 after the Bush policies caused the worst recession since the great depression and the U.S. was shedding 800,000 jobs a month. Just prior to that you were telling people to think twice about voting for Obama because it would be bad for the economy.

It takes several months to a year for an incomming presidents’ policies to take effect so things continued to get worse through much of 2009. The stock market crashed, unemployment peaked at 10.2%, and average middle class incomes dropped. Since late in 2009 after Obama’s policies had a chance to take effect all economic indicators have slowly improved. The economy stopped losing jobs and started creating them every month since. The unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8% (and would be 2% lower than that if not for Republicans blocking every attempt to create jobs) average middle class incomes stopped dropping in 2009 and have slowly increased since then. The Dow is up 70% and the S&P up 80%, the housing market has started showing improvement and consumer confidence is up.

Its you who is not adequately projecting into the future. A Romney spokesman has said “Romney would be Bush-like, just more of it.”. The last thing the U.S. needs is more of the policies that caused the economic collapse in the first place. Things have steadily improved since Obama’s policies have had a chance to take effect and the improvement would have been much greater if the Republicans had blocked every attempt to create jobs to instead vote 55 times on anti-women policies.

Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

Regarding the Log Cabin Republican’s dishonestly blaming Obama for the U.S.’s credit downgrade:

Here’s what Standard & Poors gave as the reason for lowering the U.S. credit rating:

“Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.”

S&P downgraded the U.S. because of a revised expectation that the Bush tax cuts would remain in place. They assumed this because of Republicans’ unwillingness to enact any measures raising revenue, and they completely slammed House Republicans — including Paul Ryan — for doing so.

Joseph Singer

October 23rd, 2012

The _only_ reason LCR endorsed Romney is because he’s the Republican nominee and doesn’t have a thing to do with whether he’s good for the gays or not. We all knew that LCR would not endorse Obama (he’s a Democrat fercryinoutloud!) and we can only assume that LCR endorsed Rmoney because he’s a Republican. No other reason unless it’s like some have said that LCR’s are just self-hating gays.

Jim Burroway

October 23rd, 2012

From just six weeks ago:

However, I simply cannot overlook the fact that Barney Frank is the worst kind of politician, a partisan hack. I can forgive hypocrisy, personal failure, even slick polished empty suits. But I have little use for a politician who tries to broker my community for his personal advancement or that of his party.

I have not been a fan of Mr. Frank since, in the 1990 Massachusetts gubernatorial race, he endorsed supported raging homophobe John Silber over Bill Weld*. That was a jaw-dropping, mind-numbing act of partisan absurdity. I’ve seen no reason to rejoin his fan club since. In fact, now that his career is ending, it seems that he has taken on a new role: throwing a wrench into any possible bipartisan movement that can be achieved on gay rights.

And that pisses me off.

Timothy, you truly baffle me. How is it that Frank is an “ultimate political hack” for not crossing party lines and supporting someone from the competing party over, in your words, a “raging homophobe” but the LCR’s endorsing of a candidate whose positions on LGBT issues is as bad as every other anti-gay candidate who has ever won a party’s nomination — whose positions are virtualy identical to an anti-gay candidate that the LCR refused to endorse in 2004 — allows LCR to escape the label of “ultimate political hacks”? You’re still pissed off over what Frank did twenty-two years ago, but just “dissapointed” at LCR doing exactly the same thing today? And comforted by the hint of a suggestion of maybe an unspecified promise somewhere that we may never learn about, which means that there’s a kind of a bright side to this?

The only bright side I can see is that there must be a pony around here somewhere.

Timothy Kincaid

October 23rd, 2012

First, if you believe that Silber and Romney are comparable, you need to check up on your history. Not close. Not ballpark. Barely the same universe.

I’m not pleased about this endorsement. You seem to be angry that I’m not displeased enough. If I called Frank a political hack (and he is) why haven’t I used the same language here?

But the difference between LCR and Barney Frank is that LCR does not endorse every single Republican that comes down the road and rail against every single Democrat. Frank is partisan EVERY time, no exception.

So I’m disappointed. But at the same time I know that LCR is not usually knee-jerk. So I’m leaving open room for this decision to have some conditions to their “conditional endorsement”. I don’t yet know. I hope so, but it may have just been a sell-out.

But even if it is a stupid entirely-partisan sell-out decision and has no discernible justification, that still doesn’t put them in the same category as Frank. He’s partisan always – with or without any attempt at justification.

A partisan hack is not the one who puts party first one time, it’s the one who puts party first all the time. Frank, yes. LCR – based on their history – not so much. Frank works as hard as he can against bipartisan efforts; Log Cabin works as hard as they can for them.

But if they start developing a pattern of rubber-stamping the Republican Party – like GOProud – and being the Anti-Democrats Club then I’ll be happy to make that call.

Be less baffled.

Jim Burroway

October 23rd, 2012

I think what passes for a raging homophobe today is (and ought to be) different from what passed for a raging homophobe in 1990. My comment wasn’t about comparing Silber and Romney. It was about comparing Silber v Weld and making a choice, with Romney v Obama and making a choice.

And with this choice, I would suggest that with Romney’s deplorable positions the LCR has, in fact, begun to rubber-stamp the GOP like GOProud in the way that the LCR of yore would not and did not. History is for historians. What LCR did today pisses me off.

Timothy Kincaid

October 23rd, 2012

Unlike the Frank defenders, I’m not going to pretend like this is a good thing. Be pissed off; I’m certainly not pleased.

I’ve heard your suggestion, and if it proves to be a more-that-a-single-instance trend I’ll consider it. I’m not a part of the organization and I have no inside track, but I know the history, the thinking and more than a few of the players. So I won’t be surprised if there is more to the story.


October 23rd, 2012

I guess I’m more in line politically on most things with LCR than the Stonewall Dems and definitely GOProud. However, I am disppointed with LCR’s endorsement of Romney. Given that I can answer that famous question, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?”, with an “Absolutely not!”, I suppose in some ways I’d prefer Romney over Obama. Yet given the social con folks he surrounds himself with, and who he will be beholden to as president, I could not vote for him and look at myself in the mirror. So I decided to split the difference and vote for Gary Johnson. Yeah it’s a protest vote but at least I can live with myself regardless which one of the major turkeys wins in a couple of weeks.

Priya Lynn

October 23rd, 2012

John, most Americans are better off now than they were four years ago and you likely would be too if Republicans hadn’t blocked every effort Obama made to improve the economy so if you prefer Romney to Obama you’re shooting yourself in the foot.


October 23rd, 2012

I’m not buying it, Priya. Obama is a joke. Fortunately for him, so is Romney. It doesn’t really matter anyways because I’ve already voted by absentee ballot for Gary Johnson.

John D

October 24th, 2012

On the Barney Frank allegation, I’d just be happy for some documentation. When John Silber ran for governor, I lived in Cambridge. I voted for Francis Bellotti in the primary and then went on to vote for William Weld in the general election.

I have no recollection of Frank endorsing Silber, nor can I find any credible indication that he did. Further, dipping into the Globe archives shows that Frank was still weathering the Steve Gobie scandal. It would seem odd for a politician who was trying to put the story of his gay prostitute ex-boyfriend behind him would endorse someone who had made opposition to gay rights part of his campaign. It would have been noteworthy.

Nor did Bay Windows cover a supposed endorsement of Silber by Barney Frank. Instead, they noted that the gay community came out strongly in support of William Weld. Once again, if a recently outed member of Congress were to endorse an outspoken anti-gay candidate, it would be news. If it had happened, I’d expect Bay Windows to not only report it, but to write an editorial criticizing Barney Frank. How could something like this leave no trace? No one saw fit to cover it?

But the Log Cabin Republicans, in endorsing Mitt Romney, are clearly partisan hacks. Gay group endorses anti-gay candidate. Yeah, that’s news.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.